Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Public sentiment is wrong, and fomented by so called mens rights movements.

I probably live under a rock but I have never heard of men's rights movements.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Bonded

lol are they not getting a fair trial right now, what are you even going on about? Even if they are found not guilty that does not mean they are innocent.

The opening sentence is a ridiculous statement. The whole thing started with a mistrial.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

I probably live under a rock but I have never heard of men's rights movements.

Be grateful for that

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Bonded

lol are they not getting a fair trial right now, what are you even going on about? Even if they are found not guilty that does not mean they are innocent.

I was replying to a specific comment that was concerned that lawyers were doing their job. I think it's you who doesn't understand what they're going on about, not an unusual circumstance it would seem.

In no way did I imply that they are innocent or guilty. But, your comment is interesting as it fits what I am talking about. You've already made up your mind that they are guilty, based on circumstantial half presented evidence that you're only hearing filtered through reporters... Wouldn't it just be more prudent to rely on the outcome of the jury vote after it's complete, and then form an opinion? I think we have lost the ability to do this in general, and it is worrisome. I am definitely not immune to it personally, and I suspect a degree of personal experience and emotionality comes into it for all people. But IMO the oversharing of explicit court details at every juncture like this is an overall detriment to the justice system.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I was replying to a specific comment that was concerned that lawyers were doing their job. I think it's you who doesn't understand what they're going on about, not an unusual circumstance it would seem.

In no way did I imply that they are innocent or guilty. But, your comment is interesting as it fits what I am talking about. You've already made up your mind that they are guilty, based on circumstantial half presented evidence that you're only hearing filtered through reporters... Wouldn't it just be more prudent to rely on the outcome of the jury vote after it's complete, and then form an opinion? I think we have lost the ability to do this in general, and it is worrisome. I am definitely not immune to it personally, and I suspect a degree of personal experience and emotionality comes into it for all people. But IMO the oversharing of explicit court details at every juncture like this is an overall detriment to the justice system.

It sounds like it’s you who doesn’t understand what they’re talking about if you think a stating basic fact that not guilty =/= innocent is some indication of some large scale societal problem. Wouldn’t it be prudent to educate yourself on these things before commenting with such unearned confidence?

[zukes]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Even if I was down for an orgy and consented to group sex, the second they mentioned sticking golf clubs up my hoohah, consent would be withdrawn.

She could very well have previously consented to having a wild night. But consent is a second by second thing. It can end anytime. And at any point she tried to leave and they coerced her to stay is the second consent ended.

This what I think is mostly likely what happened. She wanted a "wild night" and there is nothing wrong with that.

I believe E.M. that at some point she was just going along with it to get it over with. Unfortunately for her, it will be difficult to prove that what seemed like at least implied consent was no longer there, given her actions (which were by this point were done in distress).

It is clear that the players took whatever she was good with well beyond any semblance of decency and I hope that they are convicted.

I am sure there is a lot more evidence to come that will sway the case, just my thoughts thus far.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It sounds like it’s you who doesn’t understand what they’re talking about if you think a stating basic fact that not guilty =/= innocent is some indication of some large scale societal problem. Wouldn’t it be prudent to educate yourself on these things before commenting with such unearned confidence?

Lol concerned that someone is entering your well established turf?

The large scale societal problem is jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence. Not some sort of guilt and innocence grey area mumbo jumbo. This problem isn't only applicable to court cases, though it seems to be especially prevalent there. I think another good example was reddit lynching the wrong person for the boston bombing. Or covid misinformation- like lab leak theory.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by zukes

This what I think is mostly likely what happened. She wanted a "wild night" and there is nothing wrong with that.

I believe E.M. that at some point she was just going along with it to get it over with. Unfortunately for her, it will be difficult to prove that what seemed like at least implied consent was no longer there, given her actions (which were by this point were done in distress).

It is clear that the players took whatever she was good with well beyond any semblance of decency and I hope that they are convicted.

I am sure there is a lot more evidence to come that will sway the case, just my thoughts thus far.

Actual charges are basically a “bonus” at this point in my opinion. Their careers are rightfully toast, being a job that’s 100% a privilege to have. E.M. told police that she was more interested in making sure this doesn’t happen to someone again. I believe telling her story in this setting with this coverage is doing a lot to protect others.

[IliketoPuck]

To that point, it has also empowered others to bring their stories forward.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Lol concerned that someone is entering your well established turf?

The large scale societal problem is jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence. Not some sort of guilt and innocence grey area mumbo jumbo. This problem isn't only applicable to court cases, though it seems to be especially prevalent there. I think another good example was reddit lynching the wrong person for the boston bombing. Or covid misinformation- like lab leak theory.

Like accusing someone of having already made up their mind that the accused are guilty because they point out that not guilty =/= innocent, right?

Save the jabs, you’ll embarrass yourself further. It really seems like you’re making stuff up because you’re desperate to share some sweeping commentary on the ills of society you thought up late at night. So far we’re covered Trump, innocent people sentenced to death, COVID, the Boston bombing… any other ground you feel the need to cover or do you think it’s possible to refocus and try to make a point without strawman and extreme examples?

If you’re living in a world where no conclusions can be made and thinking this trial is about landing on either side of some binary reality where this all happened with malicious intent or it was all made up, then you’re not living in reality.

You’re aware that it is entirely possible and entirely likely (based on how difficult these specific kinds of trials are especially) that all of this happened, everything the victim says from her feelings to her actions and the actions of others is absolutely true, and yet there are “not guilty” verdicts across the board, right?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'm not a legal expert. Regardless of the verdict, I think it's safe to say they are all gross, cruel people.

There are lots of gross cruel people that never break the law. "Innocent" doesn't mean you aren't a dirtbag loser, if that ends up to be the case.

Reading the reporter's notes from yesterday's proceedings leaves me feeling very sad. I don't think I will do that again.
The 5, in whole or part, will be found guilty or not guilty. Regardless of verdict there is no question that they are indeed gross, cruel, mean, dirt bag losers.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Lol concerned that someone is entering your well established turf?

The large scale societal problem is jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence. Not some sort of guilt and innocence grey area mumbo jumbo. This problem isn't only applicable to court cases, though it seems to be especially prevalent there. I think another good example was reddit lynching the wrong person for the boston bombing. Or covid misinformation- like lab leak theory.

The funny part is that I didn’t even comment on the guilt or innocence of the accused. You are the one jumping to conclusions and perpetuating the great societal problem you detest so much.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

How is the comparison lame? Presuming guilt and desiring a no trial punishment is Exactly what Trump is doing with deportations in the states.

That is what was being suggested. Sure, you can have whatever moral opinion you want, but that doesn't make it justified, or right. It's much, much more lame to desire/seek punishment based on unproven accusations.

The extreme example here is convicting a muderer to death only to find out later they were innocent. Well, we have already opinioned these guys to cultural and career death. The weight of this trial has also already probably irreperably altered their lives. So I pose the opposite question, what if everything the two defense lawyers have said is the objective truth? What if she wasn't that drunk, what if she did request more guys enter the room, what if she encouraged them? What if her crying and later recanting was a snowball effect from regret of cheating on her boyfriend and shame?

These would be awful accusations to levy against her in reverse, and would need to be proven.

The extreme example here is convicting a murderer to death only to later find out the victim was asking for it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The extreme example here is convicting a murderer to death only to later find out the victim was asking for it.

I think I saw that in an episode of Rake once.

[manwiches]

Yeesh. Came to see comments on the case, and peppered within is a 8==D measuring contest between a couple posters. Take it to PM you narcissistic slogs

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by manwiches

Yeesh. Came to see comments on the case, and peppered within is a 8==D measuring contest between a couple posters. Take it to PM you narcissistic slogs

CBC has live updates every single day. Front page.

[FlamesAddiction]

The questioning from Formenton's lawyer seems heavily weighted on the choice to drink heavily that night insinuating that she made the choice to drink in order to bring her out of her shell, become less inhibited, and to make "fun" choices that she wouldn't make if she was sober. The notion that drunk people are still responsible for their choices even if the sober version of the person wouldn't have made them and would regret them, and that it is not up to others to determine what the sober and drunk personas would choose to do especially if they are all drunk. I believe this may be related to her statement yesterday conceding that she may have been asking for some of what happened, but they should have known how drunk she was.

It's kind of an uncomfortable line of questioning. There has to be some point where a person is so drunk that they no longer have agency and can't consent, but of course there levels of inebriation that someone can consent even if it is a bad choice.

[dieHARDflameZ]

I’m not a lawyer so I guess I’ll never understand but I do wonder if they’d be asking the same questions if it was their daughter as the victim in something like this.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

I’m not a lawyer so I guess I’ll never understand but I do wonder if they’d be asking the same questions if it was their daughter as the victim in something like this.

I think they would. Its their job. Its not fun, but its their job.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

I’m not a lawyer so I guess I’ll never understand but I do wonder if they’d be asking the same questions if it was their daughter as the victim in something like this.

The callous but correct answer is no they wouldn't, because they would never be in that position. It would be a horrible conflict of interest if the accused's counsel was also the parent of the victim.